Talk:Tilopa

Lamas

Did Tilopa ever hear the word bla ma? Did he ever meet any Tibetan? Should the article be categorized as Lamas?--Klimov 17:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I think the category Category:Lamas name is unfortunate, as is the fact that it is a subcategory of Category:Tibetan Buddhist teachers. I am wondering if that category could be bypassed by finding appropriate places for the few articles in it. Also, the creation of Category:Mahasiddhas is a very good idea. I will put it under appropriate supercategories and this may resolve some categorization issues. Of course, Marpa was the first Tibetan in the Kagyu lineage so Tilopa and Naropa don't belong under the Lama category. Ekajati 18:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course they do. Tilo, Naro, Marpa, Mila, etc. are all considered lamas in the Kagyud lineage... bLa.ma. is simply the Tibetan word for guru. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.9 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Tilopa

I'm sorry for the effort you put into the Osho-quote in the Tilopa article, but I've shortened it to just one line. To my opinion the long quote does not add additional information to the article, only a long quote from a teacher who has little to do with the Tibetan tradition. Wikipedia is not meant for long quotations; quotes should add information, as an illsutration to the topic in the article. See Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing quotations. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, your shortening of the Osho-quote on Tilopa is good because as you said that it does not add additional information to the article. However, the one line you have chosen seems to be out of context. You can remove that too. It also does not add anything to the article. It seems that you have little information on Osho and that your mention that he is a teacher who has little to do with the Tibetan tradition is based on insufficient information about Osho. As i have read him, he has probably everything to do with it. I would recommend that you read his book on Tilopa and then choose any line to make the article richer. Regards. Dilara|talk —Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC).

Hi Dilara. I know a little about and from Osho, but has been a long tome since I read anything from him. I think that, if Osho is to be mentioned, it would be better to use a secondary source, which explains how Osho uses various traditions, and how he interprets Tilopa, and what this adds to our understanding of Tilopa. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

And then if a secondary source is to be mentioned then we need a tertiary source which explains how the secondary source uses his mind. This leads to an absurd infinity. We cannot ask for secondary sources all the time. If Buddha mentions something which is included in Buddhism we take it as it is without asking other sources. So please read and then decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilara.adim (talk • contribs) 06:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Using secondary and tertiairy sources, instead of using primary sources, is a basic rule of Wikipedia:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

And also:

Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research.

First thing, the Osho book on Tilopa is a published source. It is not a research paper. Second, we should never interpret the content of primary sources for ourselves but then on what basis did you chose that line. It is an interpretation. My only point through all this is that just including that one line is out of context. It does not enrich the article in any way. The content which i had provided gives a glimpse on Tilopa and his way. It was provided very considerately. It enriched Tilopa. Made him juicy. I understand that this might be my interpretation. But the one line you have chosen is your interpretation. So probably we need a secondary source as to whose interpretation is correct. It leads nowhere. And again you seem to have not read the book. I am really very new to wikipedia and when i read your page, i thought that you could be a person of research and reason on these topics. But it is now doubtful. Remember that you are editing the content with insufficient knowledge and that cannot be a basic rule for editing.--Dilara.adim (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilara.adim (talk • contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dilara. You're right this one line is interpretation as well. I didn't read the book indeed, and I'm also not intending to read it. If you think this one line is out of context, then you can remove it as well. I think it's up to you to give a reasonable summary, or quote. But don't be discouraged by criticism; have a look at my first try at the Zen-page, and the discussion it provoked. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"He lived along the Ganges River, with wild ladies as a tantric practitioner and mahasiddha." I rather misdoubt this line. Laodah 22:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)